Should the Family Research Council be considered a hate group?

[ck4829]

"I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society."
- Peter Sprigg, speaking on behalf of the Family Research Council.

How could this NOT be considered hate speech?

Spread the word, and find hate group watching organizations (Such as the Southern Poverty Law Center), and tell them about this undeniable hate speech by the Family Research Council.

[Taverner]

1. They're a hate group alright

[panader0]

2. Or a terrorist organization

Off to Gitmo with the lot of 'em!

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Yes, they should be considered a hate group

Dressing their hate up in religious garments does not make it any less hateful.

[BOSSHOG]

4. ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY YES

Hatred and ignorance are conservative values exploited by such groups to MAKE A LIVING. And I just truly love it when the leaders and the lemmings whine about christians being oppressed in this country. Their talking points are legendary.

My wife and I stopped going to church (christian) several years ago because we were sick and fucking tired of being told which group of fellow americans we were supposed to hate on any given week.

[wolfgangmo]

7. Faith is not the problem...

... it is Religion.


This group is about hate as are most churches I have entered to check out. I was once interested Christianity but I can't say that I am anymore. I own a bible and take from it that which is worth taking.

As for churches the one across the street from my house recently broke with the Presbyterian church and become evangelical. It cost them big bucks to buy their way out, they lost lots of members, but the new members who are showing up are a whole new level of scary. They talk about how the homos are ruining america real loud after worshiping ].

Sigh. If America keep embracing these wingnuts then it will be time to get out and find a safe home for my family that is not crazy. And has a future.

[Occulus]

12. But they have faith that they are right with god.

In their case, it is about both religion in general and their faith specifically.

Actually, they have no faith. Their god is so fragile, it is threatened by what people outside their faith do in their own homes (OR in public!), away from them, out of view.

Talk about an eggshell god. That's what they worship- an eggshell god.

[Solly Mack]

5. I consider them as such

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Any org w/ family in their name is probably a hate group

Flame away!

[Ikonoklast]

8. Just replace 'homosexuals' with any other minority, race, religion

"I would much prefer to export Jews from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe being Jewish is destructive to society."
- Peter Sprigg, speaking on behalf of the Family Research Council.


"I would much prefer to export Blacks from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe being a different color is destructive to society."
- Peter Sprigg, speaking on behalf of the Family Research Council.


"I would much prefer to export Wiccans from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe their religion is destructive to society."
- Peter Sprigg, speaking on behalf of the Family Research Council.


Yep, they're a HATE GROUP.

[Initech]

9. Add the American Family Association to the list.

[Occulus]

10. Oh, ye gods, YES. n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

11. No...

Free Speech is *entirely* about allowing speech that offends us and unless they are calling for violence against a group they should not be a the group....

The NOI, FRC, and others who offend other people so long as they are not calling for violence should fall under the shield of free speech..

[Occulus]

13. Fire.

Crowded theater.

[Lance_Boyle]

19. the quoted text is not even close to "shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Rest the hyperbole. The quoted text is clearly labeled as one man's opinion, is definitely protected speech, and does not incite violence. This thread is quite frankly silly, and a good example of why a First Amendment was deemed necessary.

[FiveGoodMen]

30. Free speech can also be hate speech

It can be protected and still be wrong.

[Ikonoklast]

14. No one said that they couldn't practice their rights of free speech

But if what they say is hateful, they are going to get called on it.

Nazis have every right to march, and make speeches.
So does the KKK.
Or Louis Farrakhan.
That's the great thing about this country.

But I call them out on their hate.

I wonder what you would say if they advocated sending Christians out of this country, free speech and all that.

The screaming would never stop.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

16. 15 years ago I would have agreed with you

but we continue to take informal classes of groups like 'hate groups' and chip away at their rights..

If someone advocated kicking xtians out I would have little problem, hell Im on DU arnt I? There is allot of anti Christian posting here and, for the most, part I just ignore it..

[ck4829]

15. Saying that a group is a hate group does not limit it's right to free speech

But pointing out that a group is bigoted and hateful when it truly is (Such as the Family Research Council), is free speech.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

17. You have every right to question and attack the groups..

But hate groups are suddenly falling under 'hate laws' which is the first step in eroding free speech.. If there is ever going to be legal weight behind 'hate groups' we better be damn careful how we use it..

[bullwinkle428]

20. So you're conflating hate crime laws with infringement of free speech?

I'm sorry, but that's a classic right-wing tactic. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your point, but that's how it came across to me.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

21. Ok here is an example..

Phelps is a world class tool, so lets pick someone both you and I hate so we dont go down the road of bashing each other..

"So far, nine states have approved laws that impose restrictions on demonstrations at funerals and burials. More than 20 other states are considering similar legislation."

Now like I said Phelps = Tool and protesting along the route of a funeral is about the least classy thing you can do but it is setting precedent!

- Your social values and the way you express them are horrible so we are going to pass a law making it harder for you..


--

I'm not honestly how sure I am about hate crime laws, there are some things which seem to scream for it and others that get called a hate crime that are ridiculous. All in all I don't think any society is far enough along to let any such laws exist in a manner trusted to be safe for future liberty of later generations.

[JackBeck]

24. We already have hate crimes laws.

Been around for almost 40 years. The current legislation is the add the LGBT community to the already existing laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes_in_the_United_States#Federal_prosecution_of_hate_crimes_.281969_law.29

1969 law

18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2), enacted in 1969, permits federal prosecution of people who "by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been" attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school. Penalties for hate crimes involving firearms are prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can bring life terms or the death penalty.<1>

Appellant courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law,<2> and the Supreme Court has declined to review those decisions.<3> Courts have also held that the law provides for criminal sanctions only, and does not create a cause of action for civil liability.<4>


Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.<5>

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

26. And I believe I disagree with them

In principle. It seems to me the judicial not legislative branch should be handling such things! Just change the sentencing guidelines to allow more flexibility for the judge and let them do what they are called on to do..

[JackBeck]

27. What I find bizarre

Is that no one cared, nor probably even knew that this law existed, until the LGBT community lobbied to get added to the other protected classes.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

31. Of course people cared...

There have been objections to these laws for *decades* your attempt to take my post, completely ignore it, and imply that my objection is based solely (or even mostly) on gender preference issues is a pretty transparent attempt to get out of addressing weather or not this should be a judicial or legislative function..

[JackBeck]

32. What I take umbrage with

is the repetition of right-wing talking points that hate crimes laws stifle free speech. They don't, with the obvious proof being these laws have been around for 40 years and racists still get to be racists, misogynists still get to vocalize their hatred for women...

And as far as addressing your other post, how about involving all the branches of government since they are supposed to be co-equal, than exclude one, as suggested in your post.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

33. Seldom in history is a right eroded in one fell swoop...

Usually you set up a bad precedent with 'good' intentions, let people gripe a bit and when it becomes the status quo you move forward. Many nations around the world are deciding free speech is not that important and the only thing protecting us from that is the first amendment! We best be careful at how we treat it..

Free speech zones, banning the phelps protest on public lands, things are starting to get pretty bad. And all we can decided to do is strengthen the idea that it is ok to try and guess what someone was thinking when they committed a crime.

Hell the problem with *'s domestic spying is not that he is listening to me its that *he could* listen to me..

--

As to 'co-equal' branches of the government I think you are seriously misrepresenting what that means. Different branches have different responsibilities.

[Ordr]

28. Don't even bother.

The fringe far-left is just as pro-censorship as the far-right.
It's a pointless argument but I agree with you 100%.

[Occulus]

23. I just BET you're against the concept of hate crimes, too n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

25. I think hate crimes are too complex to be codified..

Better to elect judges who can say 'because of the nature, reason, and intent of your crime Im going to give you the max..'

Mug someone: get a year
Mug someone because they are gay: get 3 years

But the codification of such laws as special eliminates human judgment on which an imperfect (read all human based) legal system depends...

[JackBeck]

18. Yes.

But it is still perfectly legal to discriminate against the LGBT community, and depending on where you live, deny them housing and employment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

YES... but you will not see action against these nazis

they have proteksia

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. YES... but you will not see action against these nazis

they have proteksia

[niyad]

29. of course they are a hate group